Bishop Hill Singhing about the decline
May 19, 2011 Climate: MWP Andy Russell has a report from the Royal Meteorological Society AGM, which was addressed by John Mitchell and Simon Singh. This bit was particularly interesting
There was also an interesting question for Simon about the similarities between the “hide the decline” episode and an edit Simon showed us that he had made to one of his own documentaries (substituting “primes” with “numbers” in an interview with a mathematician to make it understandable for a wider audience). Simon argued that they were quite different situations as the removal of unreliable proxy data was done for scientific reasons whereas his edit was done for communication reasons. I wonder if there isn’t more of an overlap, though. I’m not sure we’ve properly acknowledged the needs of different audiences and how scientists decide to summarise their work for them.
Removing the bit of data that shows the rest of the series to be unreliable is not a "scientific reason". It's called "cheating".
Reader Comments (26)
So Singh goes out on a limb and confidently says the decline proxy data is "unreliable". I wonder how he got that knowledge? Purely via John Cook? As far as I know there is no existing strong hypothesis to say why the decline data declines let alone showing it to be "unreliable". It is not like it is data gathered with dodgy instruments or from dubious sources where unreliability could be justifiably attributed.
That is what troubles me about this new class of well know popular science mavens they seem to be able to define what constitutes valid science at a whim merely to smooth their way past searching questions and no one bats an eyelid.
"unreliable proxy data"
If Singh believes the decline data is unreliable why wouldn't the preceding data be too?
Did he say that all numbers are prime numbers?
What does that communicate?
Didn't Peter Stott and Myles Allen predict in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level?
In fact HadCrut shows for this period from 1946 to 2010 a 0.5C rise and GISS a 0.6C rise.
Mind if you look back further at the period from 1890 to 1945 HadCrut shows a rise of about 0.5C and GISS a 0.6C rise.
I suppose Simon Singh would argue that you are not allowed do that sort of comparison of pre-AGW and AGW periods for "scientific reasons"!
There are no scientific reasons for removing the recent proxy data from the chart. There is a meta-scientific reason, namely to preserve a hypothesis from refutation, but this is not normally applauded.
Avoiding refutation by adding ad hoc hypotheses to account for the anomalous phenomena is not unique to climate science, but it should be seen for what it is.
Mann et al 2008
Hang on, didn't Phil Jones explain to Sir Paul Nurse on the BBC about how data was substituted in a famous graph to make it all more clear ?
This tactic sounds like the moment when, caught in a lie, a child says "What I really meant was..."
I am now utterly unsurprised when Singh or any of the Sleb crew make it up as the go along.
More tragi-comedy than science!
Let's face it - Singh knows, and we know, that he can say pretty much what he likes and it won't make the slightest bit of difference in the current, er, climate.
He has a no-lose position of backing the peer-reviewed consensus. If it does all come tumbling down, and we're a very long way from that happening, he will simply say 'I placed my faith in the scientific method'. He clearly believes peer review is literally incapable of being corrupted.
@DougieJ
The problem here though is that it seems that Singh has no justification for saying the data is "unreliable". Unless there are peer reviewed papers showing why, and proving how, the decline data declines or how it should be correctly calibrated as unreliable - and that does not include the weasel words in the peer reviewed literature that admit the data does not fit expectations.
& "cheating" is just another word for "fudging"
& "fudging" is just another word for "changing facts to suit ideology"
& "changing facts to suit ideology" is just another term for "lying"
& cetera
@TS - I absolutely agree with you, but Singh, Goldacre et al take the view that if anything was really amiss with Hide the Decline or the many 'gates' it would have been picked up by the magical, unshakeable process called Science. As that clearly hasn't happened, they are not prepared to delve any further. Strange position for 'sceptics' but there you go.
Mac @ 2:03pm
You say:
I checked, and the results were different except for GISTEMP 1946 - 2010. What really bothers me though is the comparison you make with the 1890 - 1945 data. You are clearly implying that there is no accelerating trend in warming across the "pre-AGW and AGW periods".
This is clearly not true:
HADCRUT. Trend from 1946 - 2010; temperature increase 1946 - 2010 = 0.7C.
GISTEMP. Trend from 1946 - 2010; temperature increase 1946 - 2010 = 0.0.64C.
GISTEMP. Trend from 1890 - 1945; temperature increase 1890 - 1945 = 0.33C.
HADCRUT. Trend 1890 - 1945; temperature increase 1890 - 1945 = 0.44C.
Sorry - screwed up the links above.
HADCRUT. Trend from 1946 - 2010; temperature increase 1946 - 2010 = 0.7C.
GISTEMP. Trend from 1946 - 2010; temperature increase 1946 - 2010 = 0.0.64C.
GISTEMP. Trend from 1890 - 1945; temperature increase 1890 - 1945 = 0.33C.
HADCRUT. Trend 1890 - 1945; temperature increase 1890 - 1945 = 0.44C.
BBD, you are comparing two unequal time periods (not that you wanted to do it that way, but explaining it just the same).
Secondly, how are you generating your total temperature change? Just want to know.
I think 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 would be analogous to each other.
Shub
Agreed re time scales, but as you say, it was something that came out of Mac's comment.
To get the total temperature change for a selected period, generate a trend from the start to finish years, go to the raw data (link below data entry panes on WfT graph page), take the annual trend value and multiply by the number of years under examination.
This sounds like what Jones said in the BBC interview with Harrabin:
I'm ploughing through a heap of paperwork - if you want to find the actual warming for the periods here can you do it with WfT and post the links? (Maybe OT - could always stick in in Discussion on the end of the Satellite thread).
I expect the actual increase in T is similar 1910 - 1940 vs 1970 - 2000 but we should check.
Of course with GISTEMP you have to decide whether you are looking at it as it was, or as it is now after the retrospective adjustments making old years colder.
David S
Fair comment. I'm not comfortable with the pre-1940s adjustments made to GISTEMP either.
"Did he say that all numbers are prime numbers? What does that communicate?" --John Silver
That he's been priming his digit?
That Richard Muller, the physicist in charge of Berkeley University's BEST project, stated clearly and distinctly that "Mike's [Nature] Trick" is not science and that he no longer reads the responsible scientists' papers is one.
That apart from the climatologists responsible and their friends in the media and climate cultosphere, no one has come forth defending the 'trick to hide' for scientific or communication reasons is another.
Then, of course, there is famous Richard Feynman quote that argues scientists must also present evidence that disagrees with their hypothesis, or something like that. I'm sure Simon Singh would know better than this layman.
However, The Heretic puts it best:
Perhaps, Simon Singh really gets his science from John Cook's climate cult website.
Gareth @ 1:59pm hits the nail on the head:
Disagree that Singh is in a no-lose situation. I've bought and read at least two of his books in the past and thoroughly enjoyed them.
Now I distrust both his judgement and motives and will never buy another book of his. He's lost my trust and support.
I don't think that I'll be alone with that sentiment.
RoyFOMR - I second your comment. I have bought three of his books - in a Charity Shop of course because they seemed a good read, however, they remain in my pending reading file (partly because I had prior doubts as to his ''methods').
This reminds me of my disappointment after recently lapping up Michio Kaku's book, Hyperspace (1994). Up to page 269, I believed I had mastered the fifth to tenth dimensions (o.k. - well at least I could repeat his outline description of what they are believed to be: all tiny by the way - 10 to many minus powers).
Then we have chapter 13 - Beyond the Future. What utter tosh. Relevant to this blog are pages 290/1. I quote:
Singh's contribution to the (C)AGW debate is troubling because, on the one hand, we have mealy-mouthed drivel of the type quoted above, and, on the other hand, we have his deservedly well respected non-advocacy writing which is still worthy of being taken at face value.
Hide the decline is now known by all and sundry (and most certainly by those who are responsible for its adoption and application) as a wholly dishonest attempt to conceal evidence which significantly undermined the claimed efficacy of historical temperature reconstruction via proxies.
The use of natural numbers in place of primes for educational purposes is only equivalent in the claimed sense if one regards intellectual integrity as nothing more than a matter of individual preference.
Under the circumstances, one can reasonably question Singh's motives in respect of his stance on AGW.